Below is my column in The Hill on the successful campaign that has forced firms to drop Donald Trump or the Republican Party as clients in the ongoing litigation over the 2020 election. Notably, this campaign started soon after the election was called for President-Elect Joe Biden.
Here is the column:
Less than a week after the election being called for President-elect Biden, supporters are turning to Shakespeare’s “Henry VI” for their first priority: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” That lawless fantasy of the character “Dick the Butcher” appears to have found acceptance not only among some of the public but some lawyers themselves.
Within 24 hours of the election being called, the media and an array of legal analysts declared no evidence of voter fraud to change the outcome. The problem was that we had not even seen the Trump campaign’s filings or evidence. As Trump lawyers began to file cases, alleging everything from deceased voters to biased authentication, the solution became clear: Get rid of the lawyers. No lawyers, no cases, no Trump.
What is most unsettling is that this effort is led or cheered on by lawyers. Take Washington Post columnist Randall Eliason, who gained notoriety supporting an array of theories on impeachment or criminal claims against Trump, including a bribery interpretation long rejected by the Supreme Court and not adopted even by the impeachment-eager House Judiciary Committee. Eliason wrote a column, “Yes, going after Trump’s law firms is fair game.” (Everything seems fair game if the ultimate target is Trump.) Eliason shrugged off the notion that attacking a person’s lawyers, rather than his positions, is beyond the pale: “Law is a profession, but these mega-law firms are also big businesses. Like any business, they can be held accountable by the public — and by their other customers.”
The law is not like any other business, however. Lawyers speak for others, including some of the least popular among us. I have represented clients ranging from judges, members of Congress and whistleblowers to spies, terrorists and polygamists. Many were hated by the public, who demanded that I be fired from my law school — but I have never seen such a campaign led by lawyers against lawyers.
Our legal system works best when competent lawyers present cases to dispassionate judges. In this case, some 72 million Americans voted for Trump, and many believe changes in the process — particularly the massive increase of mail-in voting — undermined the election’s integrity. That is why these cases are important: Faith in our legal and political systems depends on fair access to and representation in the courts.
As in the past, there is a disturbing symbiosis of the media and activists feeding off each other. When Biden was viewed as the likely winner, theories of voting irregularities instantly became “conspiracy theories.” Groups like the Lincoln Project targeted law firms and launched a campaign to force lawyers to abandon Trump as a client.
This effort resulted in Twitter blocking the Lincoln Project for targeting individual Trump lawyers in a tweet (accompanied by a skull-and-crossbones emoji) that was deemed threatening and abusive. That only seemed to thrill the Lincoln Project. It reportedly joined Democrats in targeting law firms like Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and threatening its lawyers with professional ruin. It claimed that any firm working for Trump on election litigation was part of a “dangerous attack on our democracy.” Trying to strip people of their counsel, of course, is the real attack on our democracy — and it worked: The firm buckled and withdrew, saying the pressure caused internal struggles and at least one lawyer’s resignation.
Other campaigns have targeted individual lawyers and what used to be called “fellow travelers” during the McCarthy period. After the election, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for liberals to assemble enemies lists of those “complicit” in the Trump administration. (Ironically, the first entry by a Bernie Sanders surrogate were the Republicans who founded the Lincoln Project). Former Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan proudly tweeted: “WH staff are starting to look for jobs. Employers considering them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values.”
However, the effort to intimidate lawyers representing Trump or his campaign is not about vengeance. It is about insurance. Even though the success of these challenges is small and shrinking, opponents do not want to risk any judicial scrutiny of the vote. Social media campaigns targeted the clients of firms like Jones Day, while the Lincoln Project pledged $500,000 to make the lives of these lawyers a living hell. It is the kind of tactic used by Antifa and other activists to “deplatform” speakers or harass individuals at their homes.
Trump is highly unpopular with many Americans — and virtually all of the media — so it is popular to harass anyone who supports or represents him. It is mob justice targeting the justice system itself. Yet, lawyers like Eliason are applauding the effort.
Eliason justifies such harassment by saying the Trump campaign and Republican groups “have filed lawsuits that appear to contain baseless allegations of fraud and that seek to have lawful votes rejected.” Note the word “appear.” Eliason did not know when he wrote the column because he has not seen the evidence. Neither have I. We only began to see underlying evidence (or the lack thereof) this week as courts held hearings into pending motions. It is the difference between wanting something to be true and knowing something to be true. That is generally what courts determine.
Yet, there is little patience for discussing, let alone litigating, these legal issues. On Friday, I discussed these challenges, including a Michigan district where thousands of Trump votes were initially tallied as Biden votes; the district used the same voting software that has been the subject of much national debate. While I explained that the mistaken tally resulted from human error and nothing “nefarious,” the question remains whether such new systems or software might be vulnerable to human errors. Despite my stating there was no evidence of systemic problems, Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos denounced me as akin to a “Holocaust denier” who should be fired. I was accused of “both sideism” for discussing the claims of the Trump campaign, even when noting that Biden appears the duly elected president.
Notably, the person most undermined by these efforts is Joe Biden. Rather than call for a transparent review of these cases to affirm his legitimacy as president-elect, his supporters are harassing lawyers and running a hysterical campaign of retaliation. It is an ironic twist: For years, many of us marveled at how guilty Trump looked in his efforts to bully accusers and scuttle the Russia investigation. The best thing for Trump would have been to support a full, open investigation. Likewise, there is no compelling evidence of systemic election fraud now, and the best thing for Biden would be to support a full, open investigation. Threats and biased media coverage only deepen the suspicions of Trump voters.
There is an alternative. We can all agree that every vote should be counted and every voting case be heard. Our political and legal systems both require a leap of faith — and this crisis of faith has now moved from the political to the legal system. Courts are supposed to be where reason transcends the rage that reigns outside the courthouse. However, it still requires lawyers.
Turley says no compelling evidence of systematic election fraud has been found, yet remains oddly silent when Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, says ““We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states.” Powell claims “millions of votes” were switched from Biden to Trump. Turley ignore Powell’s bold proclamation & instead takes aim at Biden supporters for “harassing lawyers & running a hysterical campaign of retaliation.” Turley insists biased media coverage is not giving competent attorneys like Powell the respect she deserves.
Trump once again just claimed “I won the election!” 4 years ago, Trump claimed he won the 2016 popular vote & accused millions of Hillary Clinton supporters of voting illegally. Turley is well aware many Trump supporters firmly believe both of those indisputably false claims about massive voter fraud, but instead pivots to: “We can all agree that every vote should be counted & every voting case be heard.”
When each state certifies their votes, we will find out whether Turley is right to apparently believe both candidates’ supporters will abide by the outcome & accept that every vote has been fairly & legally counted.
“every vote has been fairly & legally counted”
If you support the legality you suggest then you would be supporting the reexamination of ballots that suggest foul play. We already know there are problems with the Dominion machines. We know that a judge overruled Pennsylvania’s legislature regarding voting procedures. We know that rules were passed so that signatures need not match. There are a whole host of other problems. I am glad as an independent thinker you agree that all these potential failures in the voting process should be investigated.
Wait – The party that supported Christine “Crazy” Ford and Russiagate is now complaining about frivolous lawsuits??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Joe Biden said Democrats have created “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”
Why did he say that? Was it a gaffe or was it a tell.
I live in a constitutional carry state. With the exception of November 5th, anyone approaching me wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is going to have a very bad day.
It was neither:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/viral-posts-take-biden-quote-on-voter-fraud-out-of-context/
The earlier paragraph didn’t affect the following paragraph.
“Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration — President Obama’s administration before this — we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
But the text that comes *after* does affect what he was saying:
“What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying that their vote won’t be counted, it can’t be counted, we’re going to challenge it and all these things. If enough people vote, it’s going to overwhelm the system. You see what’s happening now, you guys know it as well as I do, you see the long, long lines and early voting. You see the millions of people who have already cast a ballot. And so, don’t be intimidated. If in fact you have any, any problem go to — and I don’t have the number but it’s 833-DEM-VOTE… Call that number. We have over a thousand lawyers, over a thousand of them, they’ll answer the phone, if you think there’s any challenge to your voting. Go to 833-DEM-VOTE, dial those letters on your phone. That will get you the assistance that we have already put in place.”
As the fact check notes, “When Biden used the phrase “voter fraud organization,” he was referring to the systems put into place to help people who have trouble voting. Fox News wrote about the video clip on Oct. 25, referring to it as a ‘misspoken claim’ and reporting, ‘Biden may have been referring to his campaign’s massive ‘election protection program,’ which includes former Attorney General Eric Holder and hundreds of other lawyers in preparation for a legal battle in the event of a contested election.’”
The paragraph you quote doesn’t negate the former paragraph.
It’s simple. Biden was confused or made a Freudian Slip. Both might be true but what you say isn’t.
“Notably, the person most undermined by these efforts is Joe Biden. Rather than call for a transparent review of these cases to affirm his legitimacy as president-elect, his supporters are harassing lawyers and running a hysterical campaign of retaliation.”
That is what Biden did in Ukraine when he ordered the prosecutor fired because the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, and thus, the Hunter Biden affair. I will not mention the corruption in China, Russia, etc. We all know that Biden has been walking a tightrope of criminality.
Love this quote of Turley’s. Show’s his even handedness as evidenced by the equal position he took about Trump’s affairs in Ukraine…, no wait, I have him mixed up with another talking point carrier of the right. My bad.
Come back when you are not so confused and have facts.
Look at Kayla check in with zero sense of humor and a skewed sense of reality.
Jonathan, what we can all agree on is that every LEGAL vote should be counted.
Yes, count every vote. Hear every case. But when these cases get tossed out immediately for lack of evidence take that as a clue. Trump’s own lawyers are either a) firing him, or b) admitting in court they have no evidence (and no doubt considering how this makes their firm appear in public relations)…
“Social media campaigns targeted the clients of firms like Jones Day, while the Lincoln Project pledged $500,000 to make the lives of these lawyers a living hell. It is the kind of tactic used by Antifa and other activists to “deplatform” speakers or harass individuals at their homes.”
Actually, Antifa not being a centralized organizations I’d press you to come up with anything like an Antifa organized effort to do what you’re claiming….
And yes, still noted that you’re a regular critic of anti facism, Turley.
Antifa has had many organized meetings in Seattle, Portland and many other cities. They put the word out to come to the meeting and the mob shows up. The same put the word out meetings were held by the Klu Klux Klan. Just another losely formed organization. Oh yea, bring your weapons if you got em. We’ll march right down main street mainstreet for all to see. Just don’t call us organized.
And have your mother drive you to another town to shoot people…oh wait…never mind. Sorry, got caught up in the abstraction of your comment.
How long before Prof Turley and Sen Joe Manchin remove themselves from the cancel culture and collective narrative of the Democratic thought police and declare themselves independents?
The only thing that will fix our little Commie problem now is lead. The sooner the better.
Again, contemporary liberals have no principles. They have improvisations which justify them getting what they want in every situation.
Oh my god, is Turley really that dense? Really?
People, even judges are mocking lawyers for filing these ridiculous lawsuits. The president himself has started to distance himself from these cases because he doesn’t want to associate himself with a bunch of losing cases. He’s leaving lawyers to fend for themselves and leaving them to ridicule. This is why really good lawyers didn’t take these cases. They KNEW how futile they are.
Jesus, Turley is not doing himself any favors by trying to portray Trump campaign lawyers as victims of self inflicted wounds due to incompetence. Why isn’t Turley mentioning Trump’s whiplash declarations as clear indications of pure stupidity. He’s literally now saying Biden won, but the election was rigged. This is after countless efforts to prove it failed.
– 10
Hopeless garble.
It’s one thing to mock lawyers; it’s quite another to target them for daring to, you know, practice law.
Their targetting is nothing new. Lawyers have always been the target of scorn and harassment.
They’re lawyers. They are lawyers not able to back up their cases with any evidence.
What’d ya want? America to be a safe zone? Conservatives ridiculed liberals for wanting safe zones; now they want them too! Not gonna happen. You enable the Liar-in-Chief by lying for him or remaining silent in the face of his lies, you will be deemed a liar, and you can expect to suffer your just desserts- ostracism, shunning, and being declared a persona non grata. Life is hard; it’s harder when you are a liar.
Stay in line and patiently and foolishly wait for your turn…Because this is happening before they have even taken power. At first,I did not notice little details like this until it was too late. And when they came for me, I came here and now is happening all over again… I am talking about Cuba.
What size is the collar of your brown shirt? Conservatives ridiculed the left for wanting to hide from ideas they didn’t like; that’s not what’s happening here.
Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “You enable the Liar-in-Chief by lying for him or remaining silent in the face of his lies, you will be deemed a liar, and you can expect to suffer your just desserts- ostracism, shunning, and being declared a persona non grata.”
This is a bigoted totalitarian opinion and exactly what the Nazi’s did to the Jews, at first.
https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/unclesam.jpg
Why is this surprising? For the last four years, those who support Trump have been ostracized. Why is lawyers cannibalizing other lawyers seen as unique? Are all lawyers of the same political party? Are all lawyers anti-Trump? The only lawyers determined to get rid of Trump are Trump hating Republicans who are afraid of their corruption being revealed or Democrats afraid of the same. We voted for Trump because he was against the corrupt establishment.
When Trump is found guilty in civil court and or a criminal court by a jury of his peers, you may have to rethink your belief that Trump is a corruption fighter. His day of reckoning is finally coming due.
Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “When Trump is found guilty in civil court and or a criminal court by a jury of his peers…”
Guilty of what exactly? Be specific.
Among Trump’s likely crimes: obstruction of justice (see the SCO’s report), possible perjury (according to the SSCI Report, Trump lied under penalty of perjury in answering Mueller’s questions), breaking campaign finance laws with the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, lying on his required financial disclosure form and then certifying it to be “true, complete, and correct” when he omitted his debt to Cohen in connection to the hush money payments, and tax fraud (see the NY case seeking his federal tax returns).
He’s also facing civil suits for defamation of Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll, which are slowly proceeding (he’s supposed to be deposed in both and to give a DNA sample to Carroll’s lawyers).
Listen to Commit talk and provide lists absent any proof. That is all Commit has and that is all Commit has provided despite requests from other to provide proof.
Prevarication is not proof. Lying is not proof.
Kayla, if you think it’s important to include proof, why aren’t you including proof? Are you a hypocrite?
Whomever you are, you are engaged in a logical fallacy.
Identifying sources of evidence like the SCO and SSCI reports **is** evidence, Kayla, and no one has requested additional evidence so far for my 10:50am comment, so your claim that “lists … [are] all Commit has provided despite requests from other to provide proof” is false. If you want evidence for a claim I’ve made, just quote it and ask for evidence.
I agree that “Prevarication is not proof. Lying is not proof,” but if you’re saying that I’ve lied, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that.
Absent facts, what they say is not evidence.
That is your problem. You think political opinion is fact. Try that in court.
Evidence, sir. Science. Facts. We’ve had four years and millions of dollars of investigations. Nothing yet for Biden. We’ll see.
Jeffrey Silberman, that’s been tried for four years with false accusations against Trump. It didn’t work so now they are exposing mass hysteria which will land some in jail wide spread voter fraud.
We are told we have to fear the fascist, dictator, white supremacist, Nazi, Trump.
The Jacobins are the ones who should terrify us.
“many of us marveled at how guilty Trump looked in his efforts to bully accusers and scuttle the Russia investigation. The best thing for Trump would have been to support a full, open investigation.”
Instead, he engaged in obstruction of justice was not only itself illegal but also affected the SCO’s ability to carry out an effective conspiracy investigation.
“We can all agree that every vote should be counted and every voting case be heard.”
Don’t you mean every legal vote and every non-frivolous case? Lawyers can be sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases.
ABA Rule 3.1: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. …”
State bar associations have similar rules.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “he engaged in obstruction of justice”
Are you biased anti-Trumpers still parroting that lie?
Steve, a lie is knowingly stating a falsehood with intent to deceive.
What’s your evidence that the multiple instances of obstruction identified in the SCO report are false?
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “What’s your evidence that the multiple instances of obstruction identified in the SCO report are false?”
Pick one.
No.
You claimed that I was “parroting that lie” when I said that Trump “engaged in obstruction of justice,” so the burden is on you to prove that they are ALL false. If even one of them is true, then he engaged in obstruction.
The burden is on Commit. Commit is a liar hiding behind a name that is the opposite from the truth.
Anonymous, no, the burden of proof is on the person claiming her positions are false or lies.
No. He started the chain of lies.
What lie?
Svelaz wrote, “Anonymous, no, the burden of proof is on the person claiming her positions are false or lies.”
Let me understand your opinion completely; do you somehow think that anyone who challenges a claim, any claim, is supposed to support their challenge and the one making the original claim is completely off the hook for supporting their claim?
Is that really what you think?
Here’s a claim Svelaz; Svelaz is a fool and if someone want’s to say that Svelaz is not a fool then that challenger must prove a negative. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong, I double dare you.
Consider this Svelaz, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Svelaz has removed all doubt.
This is the United States of America Svelaz, so NO Svelaz, it’s not up to the challenger to prove a negative, it’s up to the one making the original claim to support their claim. You making the statement that “the burden of proof is on the person claiming her positions are false or lies” show that not only are you a fool but you’re a ignorant to boot.
Bravo!
Svelaz thinks he is smart because he was told he had 98 degrees after someone took his temperature.
Barb22, I don’t think I’m smart. I know I’m smart. When someone tells me my temperature is 98 degrees I require them to prove to me I have that temperature. All they need to do I’d provide a thermometer and show me their claim is correct. See? It’s quite simple.
Svelaz, you present argument with Witherspoon tells us your IQ is below your body temperature.
Steve Witherspoon, no. When someone claims CTHD’s claims are a lie that someone has the burden to prove it is a lie. It’s pretty simple. The said person is asserting that a claim is a lie, therefore that person has to provide the proof that it is.
CTHD has offered to provide proof to back up her claims and often she does very well. If she’s wrong it’s incumbent upon the person challenging the claim to prove it wrong. This is basic stuff man.
So when asked to provide said proof that person reverts to throwing a verbal fit in order to get off the burden of proving their claim. They are commonly known as blowhards.
“do you somehow think that anyone who challenges a claim, any claim, is supposed to support their challenge and the one making the original claim is completely off the hook for supporting their claim?”
Steve, everyone has a burden of proof for their own claims, regardless of when they make the claim. The person who made the original claim has a burden of proof for the original claim AND the person who challenges it has a burden of proof for the challenge, as long as the challenge introduces a new claim rather than simply being a request to the first person for substantiation.
If you want me to substantiate something I said, just quote it and ask for substantiation. But once YOU make your own claim — in this case, your claim that I was “still parroting that lie” — then you ALSO have a burden of proof for your claim.
You say it’s not up to the challenger to prove a negative, it’s up to the one making the original claim to support their claim,” but actually, it’s up to BOTH to substantiate their claims when requested to do so. The problem is that you never asked me to substantiate my claim; instead, you immediately introduced a new claim of your own, that I was “still parroting that lie.” Now you’re trying to avoid substantiating your own claim after being asked for substantiation.
The 3:10pm comment was from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion.
Sounds like Allan slithering out from under his rock.
“Commit is a liar hiding behind a name that is the opposite from the truth.”
So you’re saying that the moniker CommitToHonestDiscussion is an oxymoron.
“the moniker CommitToHonestDiscussion is an oxymoron.”
More succinctly, a moron.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “You claimed that I was “parroting that lie” when I said that Trump “engaged in obstruction of justice,” so the burden is on you to prove that they are ALL false. If even one of them is true, then he engaged in obstruction.”
No you blithering fool; you made the initial claim that he engaged in obstruction of justice, it’s up to you to support your claim and like you said “If even one of them is true, then he engaged in obstruction”. So either prove one of the claims is true beyond reasonable doubt or stop your intellectual dishonest trolling.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
CTHD has removed all doubt.
Again, Steve, **both of us** have a burden of proof for our claims. It’s not either-or. It’s both-and.
My claim was that Trump “engaged in obstruction of justice,” and my evidence for that is Vol. II of the SCO report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf
I do not have any additional burden of proof to demonstrate that the SCO report “is true beyond reasonable doubt.” The report itself includes evidence. The report has also been substantiated by the SSCI report.
Now your turn: substantiate **your** claim that I was “parroting that lie.” What is your evidence that Vol. II of SCO’s report is a lie?
CTHD, Steve is either ignorant of the contents of the Mueller and GOP led Senate Intel Comm Report – only released in August, so not ancient history – or has effectively surrendered and retreated by feigning indignation and personally and baselessly attacking you. In either case disappointing as yet another defender of Trump fails to have what it takes to do so intelligently and without rancor.
Joe, in my experience, Steve may participate for a few hours but then leaves without finishing the discussion and has a hard time admitting when he’s wrong.
I wish that there were more conservatives here who chose to engage in a civil and honest discussion. Jonathan Maxson has been civil so far and seems generally sincere.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Joe, in my experience, Steve may participate for a few hours but then leaves without finishing the discussion and has a hard time admitting when he’s wrong.”
Liar.
Just because you and others choose to continue to troll me after I’m done with a particular conversation doesn’t mean what you just smeared. When I’m done, I’m done and you smearing someone because they choose to be done is a fault that reveals your petty self-centered character.
Bite me.
LOL Steve. Do you recognize the irony of you writing about “emotional childishness” while you engage in some of the behavior you’re criticizing?
I wasn’t lying.
There are multiple times when I’ve responded with valid evidence that you ignored. That’s not trolling. Here are a couple of examples:
* https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/17/opus-dei-anyone-laurence-tribe-attacks-barrs-religious-beliefs-in-latest-diatribe/comment-page-1/#comment-2001836 and jonathanturley.org/2020/09/17/opus-dei-anyone-laurence-tribe-attacks-barrs-religious-beliefs-in-latest-diatribe/comment-page-1/#comment-2001838
* https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/25/democrats-introduce-unconstitutional-act-to-limit-the-tenure-of-supreme-court-justices/comment-page-1/#comment-2005186
I dare you to read those comments and explain why you think those comments constitute trolling.
Joe and Svelaz,
In case it’s of interest, I just noticed that the person posting as “1984” also posted as “Allan” (same avatar):
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/16/the-first-thing-we-do-the-lawless-campaign-to-harass-lawyers-representing-the-trump-campaign/comment-page-3/#comment-2025987
I assume that it’s the same Allan who was a regular commenter and often insults liberals (an example: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/25/pelosi-accuses-trump-and-colleagues-of-defining-domestic-enemies/comment-page-2/#comment-1994384). The name change would explain why Allan isn’t around and also why 1984 came across as a troll. Blcch.
Thanks for swallowing the bait. Imbecile.
It’s really interesting that you would present a report that used the following as a conclusion…
The report does not conclude that President Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice and it also does not exonerate him; in fact, that was not the purpose of the report. You sir have swallowed the fake anti-Trump propaganda lie that factually states that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice and you are parroting that lie – yes it is a lie! Only a trolling shill would continue to propagate this verifiable lie and only an ignorant fool would use that report to support the lie.
It is a verifiable LIE to factually state that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice; he has NOT been convicted of such a crime. This is the United States of America and people, including the President of the United States, are innocent until proven guilty. Accusations ≠ Guilt and anyone that claims otherwise is an imbecile.
You are not only wrong, you are verifiably wrong!
You should have taken my advice…
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
You have removed all doubt.
Steve, your insults are counterproductive and say more about you than about me.
I’m a woman, not “sir.”
“The report does not conclude that President Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice and it also does not exonerate him”
Duh!
I know that, as I read the report. I did not ever claim or imply that the Mueller report concluded that Trump committed obstruction. Clearly it did not. As Mueller testified under oath, they did not consider it, because of the OLC memo. Mueller also testified that “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
But the Mueller report included evidence of obstruction of justice, and I concluded that Trump committed obstruction of justice based on that evidence. Then when you asked me to substantiate my claim, I cited the evidence in the Mueller report and the SSCI report.
Do you now understand the difference between what I actually said and your misinterpretation of what I said?
“It is a verifiable LIE to factually state that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice; he has NOT been convicted of such a crime.”
People often say that someone has carried out a crime that the person has not been convicted of. That doesn’t make it a lie.
Do you also consider it a lie for me to say that Nixon committed a crime? After all, he was never convicted. Is it a lie to say that Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and other Nazis committed crimes they weren’t convicted of? Were you lying when you said elsewhere that “President Clinton actually committed a chargeable crime, he actually lied under oath and obstructed justice”? After all, he was not convicted of either perjury or obstruction.
Here’s a discussion of what a lie is: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
If someone believes what they’re saying and is not trying to deceive, they’re not lying. They may be making a false statement, but it would be a mistake rather than a lie. In my case, I don’t think I’m mistaken either. I think that there’s a great deal of evidence that Trump committed the crime of obstruction, and I hope that he’s indicted once out of office. I also hope that Congress passes a law overriding the OLC memo and making it clear that a sitting President can be indicted.
Are you willing to focus on the evidence that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice? Are you willing to focus on the evidence for Trump having committed other crimes that I listed (e.g., breaking campaign finance law and falsely certifying his financial disclosure form despite having omitted his debt to Cohen)?
“People often say that someone has carried out a crime that the person has not been convicted of. That doesn’t make it a lie.” “If someone believes what they’re saying and is not trying to deceive, they’re not lying.”
What you are admitting, is not being truthful or credible. On the other hand you say Trump lies demonstrating your double standard for all things Trump. You cannot talk out of two sides of your mouth without forcing everyone to question, why what Trump believes to be true is a lie, while what you believe to be true is not a lie.
That places you in a very bad position tainting everything you say. Of course you ask people to point out the lies. It’s obvious your lies are contained in your double standard.
This is the point where CommittedToLyingByOmission will try to bait you into providing evidence, blah, blah, blah. Or, one of her remora will attempt to join the thread. Wait for it.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Then when you asked me to substantiate my claim, I cited the evidence in the Mueller report and the SSCI report.”
You just can’t help yourself, you can’t stop lying even about what you written that’s on record right here in this thread for everyone to read; that’s what compulsive liars and trolls do when you rile their anger.
Cite: quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
No you blithering imbecile, you didn’t “cite” as in quote anything from the reports, you cited absolutely no “evidence”, you simply linked to the report and stated that the evidence is there and expect others to do your homework for you. I asked you to “pick one” when you said that there are “multiple instances of obstruction identified in the SCO report”, you failed that simple request and instead you doubled down on your claim and posted a link to the report. You are obviously too partisan blind to actually engage in intelligent debate so I’ll just bow out of this pointless nit-picking conversation and let you spew some more of your typical unsupportable false accusations.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “I’m a woman, not “sir.” “
Awww that’s sweet; did I insult the self-centered preciousness of a psychological snowflake with piles of participation trophies on her shelves? I assumed wrong about your gender, big fat hairy deal, get over yourself.
Now let’er rip Ms. Troll.
You know, when Steve called CTHD an imbecile, I was not convinced yet of the rightness of his position, but now that he’s called her a blithering imbecile, I must say, I see his point more clearly. As an attorney, I know he’s practiced these subtle tricks of the language – and the trade – in front of numerous juries and no doubt that is why he probably brings in the big bucks. And then! Piece de la resistance! “Participation trophies”. Boom! The man’s a genius! Where did he get that one and could CTHD ever see it coming?
What a pathetic dips..t.
Take your pills.
The remora chimes in. LOL!
Steve,
The more insults you post, the worse it reflects on you.
“No you blithering imbecile, you didn’t ‘cite’ as in quote anything from the reports”
I used “cite” — not “quote” — for a reason, and frankly, it is ironic that you call me a “blithering imbecile” when you seem not to know the full range of meanings for “cite.” Citing a document doesn’t require that one quote from it. You didn’t say where you were quoting from, but here’s part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition (https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/33491):
“…
“2.
“a. transitive. To make reference to (a passage, text, author, etc.), esp. as an authority or as providing support for an argument; (sometimes spec.) to quote directly. …
“b. transitive. More generally: to adduce (something) by way of example, proof, supporting evidence, etc.; to give or bring forward as an instance; (Law) to adduce as a precedent. …
“c. transitive. Originally Law. To refer to (a text, case, etc.) in particular terms, esp. by using an exact bibliographic reference; to give a bibliographic reference for. …
“3. transitive. Simply: to make mention of or reference to; to put forward for consideration or inspection; to call to mind. Formerly also with †up. …”
I referenced the Mueller report as support for my claim, so it’s correct to say that I cited it.
“I asked you to ‘pick one’ when you said that there are ‘multiple instances of obstruction identified in the SCO report’, you failed that simple request…”
No, Steve, I didn’t “fail.” I rejected your request, correctly noting that it was insufficient to focus on one — that your claim required you to prove *all* of the instances of obstruction identified in the Mueller report failed to be obstruction. You never did demonstrate that for even one of them.
Here was the actual exchange:
Me: “What’s your evidence that the multiple instances of obstruction identified in the SCO report are false?”
You: “Pick one.”
Me: “No [I will not pick one]. You claimed that I was ‘parroting that lie’ when I said that Trump ‘engaged in obstruction of justice,’ so the burden is on you to prove that they are ALL false. If even one of them is true, then he engaged in obstruction.”
It’s also noteworthy that you could not bring yourself to answer the question “Were you lying when you said elsewhere that “President Clinton actually committed a chargeable crime, he actually lied under oath and obstructed justice”? After all, he was not convicted of either perjury or obstruction.” You simply responded with more insults.
“I’ll just bow out of this …”
This is actually an example of what I noted yesterday: you leave without finishing the discussion and have a hard time admitting when he’s wrong.
C’est la vie.
OH… MY…GOD!!!
CommitToHonestDiscussion’s (aka moniker is an oxymoron) November 17, 2020 @ 1:40PM comment is the finest examples of pure gaslighting that I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen a LOT of gaslighting trolls in the comments sections on this blog. This is quite an accomplishment.
This is exactly what happens to a person when bias makes you stupid.
Steve,
You’ve done a very good job dealing with her obsession of President Trump. You’ll notice however that she refuses to address the ample evidence of crimes committed to even get to a Mueller report. She’s a liar by omission and she has indeed removed all doubt.
You’re a liar, Olly. As a simple counterexample, I discussed the crime committed by Kevin Clinesmith: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/14/fbi-lawyer-in-russian-investigation-to-plead-guilty-for-false-statement/comment-page-2/ (and that’s not the only place I discussed it)
What’s especially amusing about your claim, Olly, is that you make a claim about “the ample evidence of crimes committed to even get to a Mueller report,” when according to Steve, a crime hasn’t been committed unless there’s a conviction. So other than Clinesmith’s, which crimes are you talking about?
There you go again, lying by omission. The full quote is she refuses to address the ample evidence of crimes committed to even get to a Mueller report. And then you proceed to use Steve’s standard to deflect from the failure of your own. Citing the Clinesmith conviction as evidence you’re an objective contributor regarding violations of the law does not relieve you of your failure to be objective regarding evidence that reflects violations of the law not yet prosecuted. For instance, you’ve opined that I think that there’s a great deal of evidence that Trump committed the crime of obstruction, and I hope that he’s indicted once out of office. Yet you ignore clear evidence of FISA abuses, Clinton/DNC paid for Russian disinformation used to open Crossfire Hurricane. FBI abuse of power to open Crossfire Razor. You are a liar by omission.
LOL, Olly, I gave you an example where I addressed it, showing that your claim that I’d “refuse[d] to address” it was false. If you cannot admit that your claim is knowingly false, that’s your problem, not mine.
As for “You are a liar by omission,” if you consider omission to be lying, then just about everyone in the world — definitely including you — is a liar by omission. Do you admit to being a liar by omission, Olly, or do you have double standards when it comes to who you consider a liar by omission?
Steve, probably the best evidence that the President did not obstruct justice is that an army of hostile lawyers spent months trying to nail him on anything from jaywalking to high treason. They came up with nothing. That is an experimentum crusis that settles all except to shills who constantly repeat the same nonsense. Goebbels would approve of the shills’ methods but honest people condemn them.
I would think that those lawyers harassing the Trump representatives might be acting contrary to two legal canons:
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
This poster, Commit, continues to post the same lie. Yet when asked for proof, he fails every time. What does that say about Commit? I guess one can assume Commit doesn’t care about truth and focuses only on his ultimate goal.
“Lawyers can be sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases.”
What are Trump’s lawyers doing that is frivolous? You create arguments out of thin air. What you don’t do is deal with the facts.
1984, she’s posted no lies. Even you can’t refute her point without having to go to personal attacks.
Every lawsuit brought by trunp lawyers has been thrown out on lack of evidence or frivolous claims. That’s why saying they are engaging in frivolous lawsuits is a fact. Pretty simple.
Svelaz, your logic fails you. Commit initiated the lies and libeled others. He engaged in personal attacks. He has to prove the initial statement has merit and he didn’t do that. Trump is expecting suits to be thrown out in the lower courts in areas where Democrat judges prevail. In fact it was a Democrat judge in Pennsylvania whose ruling defied the Pennsylvania legislature. That is unconstitutional. We will likely see the election in front of the Supreme Court. One Justice already acted.
1984, CTHD, is a woman. Not a man.
You claim she engaged in personal attacks and libeled others, based on your own argument, prove it.
She has proven the initial statement has merit multiple times on previous articles specifically on that subject. That’s how I know.
Trump wasn’t expecting suits to be thrown out because lower courts have democrats judges that’s not even remotely true.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.propublica.org/article/the-trump-campaign-cant-find-a-judge-who-will-ignore-facts-but-its-trying/amp
Thanks Svelaz. I’ve had a few exchanges with 1984 and so far it hasn’t been productive. S/he’s very quick to resort to insults.
Anonymous, if you act like a fool don’t expect to be considered a genius.
The 4:15pm comment was from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion.
Commit hasn’t proven anything that has been seriously questioned. Mostly she has avoided proof and substituted opinion for fact. You are one of those that has no idea what proof, opinion and fact are. You make decisions on the fly. Think of how courts function and take note of the demand for proof and the assessment of its level.
You say Commit is a woman and that is possible. He could also be a man, but how would you know?Are you determining his gender based on how he feels or his chromosomes?
You have not seen the birth certificate, the genetic profile. Chances are you don’t even know him. You would have to guess or accept what he tells you without you having any name other than an alias.
How do you know he isn’t lying? You really don’t know for sure yet you are convinced enough to inform another of his sex without even recognizing the level of proof you have.
The above describes the level of proof you require so your statements about the veracity of another isn’t worth very much. Credibility starts at zero and works its way up. You will never achieve lift off.
JT is an employee of Fox and The Hill- both conservative outlets. He is just serving up what his paymasters want to hear without completely jeopardizing his professional credibility. He does so by criticizing both sides, more or less, equally in a bid to appear impartial and fair-minded. The problem is that JT will not acknowledge that Trump and his dead-enders are not interested in improving the election process by rooting out potential systemic errors for future election security; rather, they want the election to be deemed so rife with fraud in the court of public opinion in order to prevail upon the Republican legislatures in the contested states to appoint Electors to vote for Trump instead of Biden. Nor will JT condemn Trump’s undermining the entire election process by calling it a fraud, rigged and stolen. His failure to explicitly disavow Trump’s reckless rhetoric is damning.
Fox News and The Hill are conservative outlets? Perhaps Fox used to be – but no longer. As for The Hill being a conservative outlet what planet are you living on?
Fox is still conservative.
The Hill carries a lot of conservative columns, like John Solomon’s.
“He is just serving up what his paymasters want to hear without completely jeopardizing his professional credibility.”
Are you so blinded that you don’t recognize that news outlets choose what they wish to hear? Turley is consistent, and that is one of his best features.
“Trump and his dead-enders are not interested in improving the election process by rooting out potential systemic errors for future election security; rather, they want the election to be deemed so rife with fraud ”
Is that why Trump and his supporters want voter verification and want to end ballot harvesting and other things that enhance election fraud? Think about it. In Walmart, when using a credit card in certain areas, you have to show picture identification. When cashing a check you need to sign your complete name and the signature must be the same as on the signature card. You seem to support all those things that lead to fraud.
You blame others so that you can hide your bias from yourself. It’s time to come out of the closet.
I will not entertain any more of your BS deflection.
As lawyers we should all agree that the non-endorsement rule, see, e.g., ABA Model Rule of Prof. Conduct 1.2., should apply. Remember that John Adams, later President Adams, defended the British soldiers accused in the “Boston Massacre,” surely a more politically fraught proposition. But there are other rules which also apply to lawyers acting on behalf of litigants–the rules against frivolous actions and abuse of process and the rule in favor of candor to the tribunal. Unfortunately, politics has cast a shadow. It appears, according to some reporting, many of the judges involved in the litigation are starting to consider sanctions in some cases based not on who the client is but the allegedly frivolous and unsupported filings and arguments. That issue of frivolous and abuse litigation is surely something lawyers should be discussing–perhaps in the 1L ethics course. That, however, should not make the lawyers subject to abuse for whom they represent. These are I think distinctions we lawyers can understand and contemplate–but then, there’s politics. Cheers.
^^^THIS^^^
Nicely stated ucmjcourtmartial.
Harassment and intimidation flow with greater breadth and velocity as partisanship becomes extreme. Compare this lawyer intimidation to the calls for the college professor’s dismissal for denying systemic racism. At my university there are few professors willing to deny inherent white racism or even remain neutral. In 2008 students here who wore McCain buttons were regularity subjected to in your face screams of racism. I had an honors student do two surveys of open Sorority meetings to test whether open or secret voting makes a difference. She found that when she simply asked for a show of hands for presidential preference almost all were for Obama, when she went to another Sorority’s meeting and had the members fill out secret slips of paper the votes were about equal. My point for the exercise was to underline the need for independence of polling, meaning that one vote is not influenced by the others, but I noticed the direction of the bias, this was 2008. As partisanship has intensified, the threat level is increasing. Of course this hasn’t reached the level of Stalinist USSR or Mao’s China, but the same principle occurs: Fear being the motivator from jumping on the politically correct bandwagon.
What’s not surprising and scary as hell is that the Democrats actually think that this kind of Brown Shirt intimidation behavior is completely acceptable.
Yes, Steve Witherspoon, you are correct and they will descend into the abyss of the world of Communism which Republicans are already targets of. When they are censored, lose their employment, and every aspect of their lives is devoid of freedom, they will rue the day they placed their trust in so called “Democratic Socialism.”
Yes, who can forget Turley’s insistence that the 2016 vote was not thoroughly vetted and scrubbed for any possible errors or fraud and his questioning now of the projected Senate majority achieved from the same suspect ballots that “elected” Biden.
What a transparent phony.
joe friday,
Maybe you don’t realize it but your comment come across as an ad hominem and a deflection.
Stop deflecting and attacking Jonathan and answer this simple question…
Is intentionally intimidating lawyers in an effort to convince them to not represent the President of the United States right or wrong?
Take a stand on one side or the other; there is no middle ground here.
Yours is a false dichotomy, Steve.
The issue isn’t whether “represent the President of the United States” per se, but whether they represent any litigant — including the President of the United States — in frivolous lawsuits.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Yours is a false dichotomy, Steve. The issue isn’t whether “represent the President of the United States” per se, but whether they represent any litigant — including the President of the United States — in frivolous lawsuits.”
Stop your obvious gaslighting.
No CTHD, this issue IS exactly what I wrote.
The same question is no posed to you…
Is intentionally intimidating lawyers in an effort to convince them to not represent the President of the United States right or wrong?
If you won’t answer the question then you too are a rhetorical coward.
CTHD is not coward. She is a shill, and as such, she has to avoid stepping into any traps that will tie her down to saying the DNC and Democrats are thoroughly corrupt and power-mad.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well said, Squeeky. Your description fits her behavior.
Who would pay anyone to lie and libel others?
DNC?
You and I disagree about what the issue is, Steve.
That doesn’t imply that I’m gaslighting.
I quoted a relevant ABA model rule of professional conduct earlier. Here it is again:
ABA Rule 3.1: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. …”
State bar associations have similar rules.
Intimidating lawyers in an effort to convince them to not represent anyone with a **just** suit is wrong, but discouraging lawyers for working on **frivolous suits** isn’t wrong.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Intimidating lawyers in an effort to convince them to not represent anyone with a **just** suit is wrong, but discouraging lawyers for working on **frivolous suits** isn’t wrong.”
Operative word in your argument is “frivolous” and the lawyers attacking the other lawyers are in the wrong because they do not have the attorney/client confidential information to determine if the suit is frivolous or not.
Your argument seems to be swirling around what appears to be either partisan or anti-Trump claims of being “frivolous”. The political left was claiming that the law suits were frivolous before they were even filed and they were claiming that there was absolutely no evidence of any kind of fraud before the states were even done counting. The political left has been actively engaging in a propaganda campaign to pre-smear any suits raised by the Trump campaign as conspiracy theories. Their propaganda has sucked you in or you’re a shill like others have claimed.
Just saying that the suit is frivolous doesn’t mean that the suit is frivolous. Heck even if the case is dismissed doesn’t mean the suit is frivolous. Frivolous is defined as “not having any serious purpose or value”; disagreeing with the purpose or value of the suit based on politics doesn’t automatically determine whether the suit is frivolous or not.
Our election integrity is at stake so shut the f**k up and let the court cases play out. We need an accurate count of only the verifiable legal votes that were cast on or before election day. Let the chips fall where they may.
Hillary Clinton told Joe Biden not to concede the election under any circumstances; you tell us why should Trump concede before he’s reasonably convinced that he lost?
The terribly biased CNN doesn’t get to determine who the winner of the Presidential election is.
The election is literally not over yet.
Steve, judges have already dismissed multiple suits because the lawyers admitted to not having evidence of fraud. An example of an exchange between Judge Haaz and a lawyer in one of the PA suits that was dismissed:
Judge Haaz: “In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct?”
Mr. Goldstein: “Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the DNC or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.”
Judge Haaz: “I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
Mr. Goldstein: “To my knowledge at present, no.”
Judge Haaz: “Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector to these 592 ballots?”
Mr. Goldstein: “To my knowledge at present. no.”
I consider that exchange evidence of a frivolous suit. Apparently you don’t. I believe that we can see whether it’s frivolous based on the transcript of the lawyer admitting he has no knowledge of fraud, despite my “not hav[ing] the attorney/client confidential information.” Either they had evidence to present to the court sufficient to it not being immediately dismissed or they didn’t. They didn’t.
“Your argument seems to be swirling around what appears to be either partisan or anti-Trump claims of being “frivolous”.”
No, my argument is based on what the lawyers themselves have said in response to questions from the judges. Instead of assuming what my argument is based on, next time ask what my evidence is.
“Our election integrity is at stake so shut the f**k up and let the court cases play out”
No, I won’t STFU. If you find that an appropriate demand, do it yourself.
“Hillary Clinton told Joe Biden not to concede the election under any circumstances”
Actually, if you listened to what she said in context, you’d know that she clearly specified “on Election Day.” She was saying not to concede the election under any circumstances on Election Day. Trump didn’t concede on election night, why should Biden?
“why should Trump concede before he’s reasonably convinced that he lost?”
Because Trump is a malignant narcissist, so what’s reasonable to him is not reasonable to someone who is mentally healthy. Personally, I doubt that he’ll ever concede. I bet he’s going to continue claiming that he won and the election was stolen, even after the election is certified by the EC and Congress.
This is just the tip of the vote fraud iceberg.
“Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: ‘We’re Getting Ready to Overturn Election Results in Multiple States’
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-to-overturn-election-results-in-multiple-states_3579599.html
“Powell said a whistleblower has come forward alleging that the voting software was designed to “rig elections.”
“He saw it happen in other countries,” she said, apparently referring to election hardware and software by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, or perhaps other software and machines.
“We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose.” She declined to elaborate when prompted by Fox News host Maria Bartiromo.
“They can stick a thumb drive in the [voting] machine, they can upload software to it even from the Internet … from Germany or Venezuela even,” Powell said, adding that operations “can watch votes in real-time” and “can shift votes in real-time,” or alleged bad actors can “remote access anything.”
“We’ve identified mathematically the exact algorithm they’ve used—and planned to use from the beginning” that allegedly switched votes to Biden, Powell said.
Powell also referred to a 2019 investigation by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), as well as other Democratic lawmakers into Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic. The senators had expressed concerns about the security of the voting systems.”
Rhodes, you’ve gone to the far fringes of stupid here. Conspiracy theories are all that’s holding up these fantasies. If one story isn’t panning out you search for another one until you find the one that might stick. These conspiracy theories are rotting your brain.
Lawyers should not file pleadings that contain lies. Trumps layers don’t just bend the Ethical rules on this issue they smash them. Reminding lawyers of their obligations under the ethical rules isn’t “targeting” them.
As always, your bile, your stupidity, and your hatred of the president come to the floor.
Go crawl under a rock somewhere, we don’t want to listen to people like you.
Justice Holmes wrote, “Lawyers should not file pleadings that contain lies.”
Wait just a minute “Justice” Holmes (your moniker must me an oxymoron); it’s not the duty of lawyers to determine what’s true or false, it’s their duty to give legal representation to those that ask for it and everyone deserves legal representation in the eyes of the law. You’re statemen is utterly moronic.
Justice Holmes wrote, “Reminding lawyers of their obligations under the ethical rules isn’t “targeting” them.”
That is another utterly moronic statement. It’s intentionally targeting them, it’s immoral, it’s unethical and on top of all that it’s illegal to target lawyers in a transparent effort to strip someone of their Constitutional right to legal representation.
Steve, how do you reconcile your claim that “it’s not the duty of lawyers to determine what’s true or false” with rules of professional responsibility like the following?
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/ (and state bars have similar rules)
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
So if the lawyer doesn’t think the client is engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and takes the case and you think there is dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation then it is up to you to prove dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Publicly accusing a lawyer of engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation without proof to support the claim is intentional defamation.
Commit has created a cottage industry of intentional defamation.
You didn’t answer the question.
Here it is again, Steve: how do you reconcile your claim that “it’s not the duty of lawyers to determine what’s true or false” with rules of professional responsibility that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”?
Doesn’t avoiding “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” require them to sometimes determine what’s true or false?
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “You didn’t answer the question.”
The way your “question” was originally worded I did answer it in my reply regardless of your statement that I didn’t.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Doesn’t avoiding “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” require them to sometimes determine what’s true or false?”
This question is worded much better. The operative word in that question is “require”.
No it doesn’t “require” them to determine what’s true or false. The rules are pertaining to the conduct of the lawyer when representing their client. If the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, then and only then is it misconduct. If the lawyer’s client is not truthful the lawyer is not professionally responsible for that. It’s up to the court to determine what’s true and what’s false in court, it’s up to the accuser/prosecutor to prove their case, it’s up to the defense lawyer to represent/defend their client and do it in a robust and professional manner.
Steve, so you admit that “If the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, then and only then is it misconduct,” but you deny that a lawyer has to assess what’s true or false in avoiding “knowingly engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”?!?
Lawyers are prohibited from filing provably untrue briefs, and from suborning perjury. There is nothing that prohibits them from advancing fringe theories in service of their clients.
But I’m sure if your kind seized enough power, there would be truth commissions replacing courts.
Wait, does “Justice Holmes” have some prior information about the lawyers’ files? How has he obtained such information? Talk about ethical rules. “Trumps layers” (sic) have shared their specific information with you? If not, I believe you have “targeted” them.